pakistan’s stance on the ‘war on terror’ challenging the...

Al-Idah 30 ( June, 2015) Research on Learning Strategies in Arabic Language …

1

Pakistan’s Stance on the ‘War on Terror’:

Challenging the Western Narrative

Dr. Sadaf Bashir

Abstract:

The tragic events of 11 September 2001 allowed the United

States to reframe its pursuit of global hegemony as ‘War on

Terror’ which is styled on Islamophobic rhetoric and action. To

counter this campaign of Islamophobia, Pakistan has adopted a

consistent and well-planned stance. The essential contours of

Pakistan’s stance on the ‘War on Terror’ are the need to:

condemn terrorism in all its forms and manifestations; defend

Islam and Muslims; support the right of self-determination of

oppressed people particularly, Palestinians and Kashmiris;

respect international law; address the root causes of terrorism;

and promote peace and harmony among cultures, civilizations

and followers of diverse religions all over the world through

promotion of a robust dialogue and criminalization of

defamation of religions.

_________________________________________________

Introduction:

The tragic events of 11 September 2001 were a welcome pretext for the

United States to reframe its pursuit of global hegemony as ‘War on Terror.’ The

war sparked US-led military interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq, ramped up

drone strikes and other special operations in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia,

accelerated diplomatic, military and economic support for the US strategic

partners, in particular, Israel and India, and fostered proxy wars for regime

change in Libya and Syria. These military and political moves on the pretext of

the ‘War on Terror’ have significantly increased American hegemonic control

over the energy rich Central Asia and the Middle East.

US hegemonic designs also sought to style the political landscape of its

allies around a system of American ideological and cultural values which speak

of ‘an ideological tension’ and ‘clash of civilizations,’ portraying such notions as

‘Islamic fundamentalism,’ ‘Islamic radicalism’ and ‘Islamic terrorism’ or

Assistant Professor, Dept. of Political Science, SBBWU, Peshawar


2

‘totalitarianism’ versus democracy, human rights, liberty and freedom of

expression. This value system has been deeply entrenched within the Western

political landscape through a constant reference to the ongoing ‘War on Terror’

that generated the culture of fear of Islam and Muslims (commonly referred as

Islamophobia) all over America, Europe, Australia and Canada.1 The prevailing

culture of Islamophobia provides a framework for the US to mobilize Western

public opinion against Muslim World to further its global hegemony. In effect,

the US-led ‘War on Terror’ has put a strain on relations between the West and

the Muslim World, which may presage a wider conflict with dire consequences

for regional and international peace. It is against this background of discord and

instability that Pakistan is keen to challenge the Western narrative of the ‘War on

Terror’ to bridge the perception gap between the West and the Muslim World

and to promote global peace and harmony.

This paper seeks to analyze the basic contours of Pakistan’s stance on

the US-led ‘War on Terror.’ It mentions that Pakistan strongly rejects the way

the US and allied countries define terrorism and narrow it down to Islam and its

followers or Muslim resistance movements in occupied territories. From

Pakistan’s perspective, the US-led coalition’s counter-terrorism narrative sows

the seeds of endemic confrontation between cultures and civilizations, thereby

posing threats to global peace and harmony. Pakistan’s stance centres around a

comprehensive strategy and prescribes particular solutions: need to address the

‘root causes’ of terrorism, respecting the international law in letter and spirit in

the ongoing ‘War on Terror,’ criminalization of religious defamation and hatred,

and encouraging a robust dialogue between Muslim World and the West to

advance the cause of peace and global harmony.

Pakistan’s Stance on Terrorism and the ‘War on Terror’:

Terrorism is Crime: Pakistan considers “all acts of terrorism as criminal and

unjustifiable regardless of their motivations.” 2

It asserts that terrorism has “no

creed, culture or religion”3 and disapproves violence and terror in the name of

religion, ethnicity, faith, value system, culture or society.4 From Pakistan’s

perspective, terrorism is not an ideology but a method of warfare that may be

used by individuals, groups or even states for personal, political, criminal and

propaganda purposes in any culture or society. Examined closely, this stance

refutes the extreme form of Western propaganda that describes Muslims as

‘fundamentalists,’ ‘radicals’ and ‘terrorists’ or ‘potential terrorists,’ falsely

implying that Islamic teachings are violent too. Pakistan challenges the

legitimacy of this claim by stating that there is no justification for the usage of

terms such as ‘Islamist/Islamic terrorists’ and ‘Islamist radicals’ as these terms

assign collective responsibility to Muslims and are absolutely unfair and

unacceptable.5 In that sense, Pakistan draws attention to three points. First,

killing of innocent civilians by some fringe militant groups or handful

individuals to serve their personal, political or criminal ends does not represent

the views of the overwhelming majority of peaceful Muslims who strongly


3

condemn terrorism. Many Muslims, who have taken the path of armed resistance

against foreign occupation and political repression, reject the killing of innocent

people. Their armed struggle is directed exclusively at legitimate foreign military

targets. To reinforce its view, Islamabad points out to the terror acts undertaken

by non-Muslim terrorist groups and individuals that have been equally callous in

their disregard for the ultimate sanctity of innocent human life. A case in point is

the terror attack on a youth camp outside Oslo in 2011 by an extremist

Norwegian Christian, Anders Breivik, which killed nearly 80 people. Former

Pakistan Foreign Minister, Hina Rabbani Khar described this terror incident “as

clear manifestation that terrorists have no religion, no nationality and no values.

They are bloodthirsty criminals and should be treated as such universally.”6

Second, Pakistan argues that an extremely small group of Muslims, who

take the view that even killing of innocent civilians to fight the ‘adversaries of

Islam’ is justified under the rules of Jihad, are not better acquainted with Islamic

teachings which categorically forbid against the taking or harming of innocent

human life including one’s own. Islam sanctions to take up arms in self-defence

such as protecting the freedom to propagate the Islamic message, defending

homes, land and people when the enemy attacks them, helping free the oppressed

people from tyranny and aggression and establishing peace and justice. The

person, who undertakes Jihad, is well aware that he is waging a war that is noble,

“just, and honourable in its objectives, means” and ends. In essence, the doctrine

of Jihad is defensive not offensive.7 Even in the defensive mode of armed

struggle, Islam orders to protect noncombatants (especially, old men, women,

and children) and captives at all costs. Moreover, Islamic teachings prohibit

Muslims against harming the enemy by treachery; destroying cultivated fields,

gardens and livestock; setting fire to inhabited areas; and demolishing buildings.8

Such clear rules of warfare aim at justice, compassion and forgiveness and go in

line with the principles of contemporary international Humanitarian law. In this

context, Pakistan considers it a grave injustice to equate Islam with violence. It

upholds that Islam is a religion of peace, compassion and brotherhood and

terrorism is a “complete antithesis to Islam’s humanistic outlook and noble

values.”9

Third, Islamabad claims that some foreign powers support militant and

terror groups to defame Muslims and advance their own geo-political agenda.

Pakistani strategic community argues that the intelligence agencies of the foreign

powers such as US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), US Federal Bureau of

Investigation (FBI) and Black Water (now Xe Worldwide Services) and Indian

Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) have infiltrated and financed some militant

groups to destabilize Pakistan.10

It is important to note that the “debriefing

sessions” of Raymond Davis—the CIA agent in Pakistan, who killed two

Pakistanis in Lahore—shocked the army about the devastating consequences of

the CIA’s covert operations in the country, specially targeting Pakistan’s nuclear

programme that remains a constant thorn in the side of America, India and Israel.

A senior police official revealed that Davis had established “close links” with


4

twenty-seven extremists. He was involved in recruiting youth from Punjab for

the militant organizations “to fuel the bloody insurgency” to give credibility to

the American notion that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons could fall in to the hands of

extremists or Al-Qaeda fighters.11

Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) responded to

such threats by restricting intelligence cooperation with Washington. 12

The dominant narrative in Pakistan now is that Washington is playing a

‘double game’ with Islamabad by supporting some extremist and terrorist groups

in collaboration with Indian and Afghan spy agencies under the garb of fighting

terrorism. The underlying intent is to defocus Pakistan army by engaging it all

over in the ‘War on Terror,’ thereby raising the costs of the war and forcing it to

align its policies in Afghanistan, Kashmir and South Asian region with those of

the US.13

Indeed, Pakistan’s successes against militancy and terrorism have

come at a heavy cost. More than 9,000 personnel of the security forces have

rendered the supreme sacrifice and more than 49,000 innocent civilians have

fallen victim to terrorism.14

The economic costs of the ‘War on Terror’ for the

period 2001-2014 are nearly US 102.51 billion dollars.15

Pakistan’s policy

makers tend to believe that the US led ‘War on Terror’ will continue to exact a

heavy toll both in economic and security terms as long as the US forces retain

long term security presence in Afghanistan and provide support to militant

groups engaged in war against Pakistani state and its institutions. Referring to

such support as criminal, Permanent Representative of Pakistan to the United

Nations (UN), Ambassador Masood Khan stated that those responsible for such

heinous crimes must be exposed to defeat terrorists: He went on to say:

“The foreign hand that masterminds and guides [dastardly

terrorist] attacks must also be exposed in order to disrupt, degrade

and dismantle the terrorist networks targeting Pakistani civilians

and installations…..Killing innocent civilians is not a doctrine. It

is a crime plain and simple. That is why; it should not be

sublimated by associating it with religion, nationality, race or

ethnicity.”16

Condemn Terrorism in All Its Forms and Manifestations: Pakistan condemns

terrorism in “all its forms and manifestations.”17

A brutal form of terror is state

terrorism which scars the lives of millions of people, in Chechnya, Kashmir,

Palestine, Myanmar, Uzbekistan, the Philippines and elsewhere. In the post 9/11

environment, the international community increasingly views state terrorism as

legitimate. In fact, the West has wilfully ignored the state terror, in particular,

perpetuated by Israel and India against, respectively, Palestinians and the

Kashmiris.18

While Pakistan condemns any violent acts by militant groups

against non-combatant civilians in Indian-administered Kashmir and Israel as

criminal, it also urges the international community to pay attention to the

phenomenon of state terrorism which is far more destructive and far more brutal

and repressive than non-state terror perpetuated by an individual or a group.

Pakistan’s Ambassador to the United Nations, Shamshad Ahmad declared:


5

“Those who employ the state apparatus to trample upon the

fundamental and inalienable rights of people are also

perpetrators of terrorism…..While a just cause cannot be

ennobled by the killing of innocent civilians; neither can the

civilized community of nations condone the use of force for the

repression of the legitimate cause of a people.”19

The West, especially United States has shown double standards in

dealing with these disputes. Since 1948, Israel has sanctioned terror to confiscate

and expand Palestinian territory. Israeli forces wilfully kill and injure Palestinian

civilians including children, human rights activists, journalists and peaceful

protesters by means of excessive and brutal force, demolish Palestinians’ homes

and other property, impose severe restrictions on their movement and arbitrarily

detain them.20

Yet the US gives its military, diplomatic and financial support to

Israel’s continued war crimes and genocide of Palestinians. This is because, in

Middle East, the US regards Israel as its “offshore military base”,21

which can be

used to exert its political hegemony and control of lucrative oil resources in the

region.

Similarly, in South Asia, American policymakers recognize that

pressuring New Delhi to end state terrorism and to come to negotiating table to

resolve Kashmir dispute will be counterproductive for the US geo-political and

economic interests in India. Furthermore, Washington seeks a strategic alliance

with New Delhi to ‘contain’ China’s rising power in the world. Therefore,

Washington never raises concerns or condemns the massive Indian military

presence in Kashmir valley which is meant to terrorize freedom-loving Kashmiri

people to submission and subjugation. How distressing it is then, that whilst

Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Palestine

and some Kashmiri resistance groups such as Hizbul-Mujahedin (HM) active in

Indian-administered Kashmir condemned for armed resistance against foreign

occupation, the terror of the Indian army in Kashmir and the Israeli forces in

Palestine goes unnoticed by the West. Pakistan, therefore, shows its

disappointment on the silence of the West with regard to state terrorism and

demands the international community to persuade Israel and India to end their

repression and brutal occupation of Palestine and Kashmir respectively.22

Most importantly, there is a growing frustration among Pakistani public

as well as policymakers on the inaction and failure of Muslim rulers and

Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC)–which represents fifty-seven

states–to play a major role in the resolution of these disputes. In this regard,

condemning Israel’s military assault in July-August 2014, for unleashing

colossal destruction upon civilian population of Gaza strip, which is already

shattered by illegal Israeli blockade since 2007, Pakistan’s Senate passed a

resolution calling it “disturbing that Muslim countries and the OIC are

unmoved” by Israeli state terrorism.23


6

Distinguish between Freedom Struggle and Terrorism: Capitalizing on the

events of 9/11 and the subsequent ‘War on Terror’ Israel and India deliberately

characterized all acts of resistance–including those directed exclusively at

legitimate Israeli and Indian military targets–as terrorism with full backing of the

West. Thus, Palestinian and Kashmiri people, determined to resist Israeli and

Indian brutal occupation, are hunted down and killed, injured or detained as

‘terrorists.’ Pakistan regrets such attempts as “a method of demeaning all those

legitimate struggles and wars for independence, which, throughout history, had

been met with pride.”24

It asserts that such resistance is just, legitimate and noble

struggle endorsed by the UN Security Council Resolutions and a necessary

response to Israel’s and Indian colonial terror. Equating a legitimate freedom

struggle with terrorism, is therefore, unjust. Islamabad has steadfastly supported

Palestinian and Kashmiri people’s legitimate quest for the realization of their

right to self-determination. 25

Respect International Law while Combating Terrorism: Pakistan declares that

the ‘War on Terror’ must be waged within the framework of international law. It

raises concerns over the methods and means of US-led counterterrorism

operations which demonstrate the will to fight terror with most brutal and

repressive forms of terror. Since 9/11, United States has launched 94,000 air

strikes in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and Libya against

“suspected terrorists”,26

mostly killing civilians or using “indiscriminate

weapons”, which is a grave violation of international law. In its zeal to revamp

Greater Middle East, the US has trained and armed militias in the ongoing ‘War

on Terror’ to trigger ‘regime change’ in Libya and Syria. Providing training,

arms and financial support to these insurgents flies in the face of international

law as well as counterterrorism mission. In this context, Pakistan considers that

an open ended ‘War on Terror’ without the sanction of the UN and the use of

armed drones violate human rights and is unlikely to secure lasting results for

counterterrorism.27

However, Pakistani government is perceived to be complicit in US drone

campaign. Despite repeatedly denouncing the US drone campaign, several

Pakistani officials have granted tacit approval to United States to carry out

attacks on suspected ‘high-value targets’ in Federally Administered Tribal Areas

(FATA) as part of Pakistan’s counterinsurgency strategy.28

The implicit

understanding gave Pakistan’s government the right to protest against the drone

attacks as “breach of Pakistani sovereignty and international law,” in order to

keep Pakistani people satisfied.29

Nevertheless, there is a growing

understanding among Pakistani officials that the use of armed drones results in

casualties of innocent men, women and children leading to alienation,

resentment and psychosocial trauma among the residents of tribal areas. The

militant groups have successfully exploited the tribes’ resentment and rage at

drone attacks to increase recruitment of youth to sustain and spread insurgency

against Pakistan. 30


7

Many Pakistani officials now hold that Americans who kill innocent

tribal people during drone strikes are war criminals by all moral and legal

standards. In May 2013, Peshawar High Court declared in a landmark decision

that US drone strikes in Pakistan’s tribal areas are “naked aggression against the

country” and constitute “war crimes.”31

The court ordered the government to

raise the drone issue at the UN Security Council and to take all possible

measures to put a stop to attacks including severing ties with the US and, as a

mark of protest, deny all logistic and other facilities provided to the US in the

context of ‘War on Terror.’32

Because of legal orders and mounting political pressure, Pakistan has

directed its representatives to raise the issue at international forums for the

cessation of drone attacks in order to avert further civilian casualties. To that

end, Pakistan succeeded to present and secure adoption of a resolution at the UN

Human Rights Council in March 2014 that called on all countries to ensure that

the use of armed drones complies with international law, “in particular the

principles of precaution, distinction and proportionality.”33

Pakistan’s diplomatic

efforts, coupled with a sincere political will, can accelerate an end to the drone

attacks in the country.

Address Root Causes of Terrorism: A recurring theme in Pakistan’s stance on

the ‘War on Terror’ is that combating extremism and terrorism warrants a

comprehensive approach, i.e. to tackle the root causes of the problem. The West

is relying instead exclusively on targeting militants and religious extremists as

opposed to understanding the repressive environment and underlying conditions

that feed these criminals. Islamabad, therefore, considers it futile to combat

militancy, terrorism and extremism without addressing their root causes. It

emphasizes that terrorism is essentially “a symptom of an underlying malaise,

and that malaise is desperation, hopelessness and alienation.”34

In that sense,

Pakistani leaders claim that the Afghan Jihad of 1980s, the Gulf War (1991),

Serb atrocities and ethnic cleansing of Muslims in Bosnia and the angry reaction

of the US-led coalition against Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan following

11 September 2001, led to the total polarization of the Muslims against the US

and its Western allies. Moreover, the US-led invasion and operations in Iraq

without the sanction of UN Security Council; West indifference to the plight of

Kashmiri and Palestinian people; the American hostile domestic responses

against Muslims; inhuman treatment of Muslim detainees, mostly of them

innocent, at the detention centers in Guantanamo Bay (Cuba), Bagram

(Afghanistan) and Abu Ghraib (Iraq); angered and provoked the Muslims across

the globe. These disputes and injustices are the root causes, which united

Muslims to show solidarity with the notion of ‘Muslim Ummah’ and identify

themselves with ‘Islamic Movements’35

against a perceived imperialist world

order.

Moreover, for nearly three-quarters of a century, Western governments

and their corporations have plundered and exploited natural resources in Muslim


8

countries to maintain liberal international order by supporting repressive client

regimes. However, the last couple of decades have witnessed an unprecedented

political awakening among Muslims to challenge their own oppressive Muslim

rulers to demand political and economic reforms.36

Nevertheless, the West has

manipulated recent Islamic political movements such as Arab uprisings to shatter

Arab unity and to dismantle the Middle East region for their own ends. For

instance, the US and its allies have provided training, arming and funding to

insurgents to overthrow Libyan and Syrian governments to promote democracy

in the region. These insurgents now operate under the banner of Islamic State of

Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Ironically, the Western officials, who previously lauded

these insurgents for overthrowing Muammar Gaddafi regime in Libya, now

consider them a destabilizing factor in the Middle East. However, the West

shares most of the responsibility for the destabilization of the region by creating

and nurturing insurgent groups to serve its interests. In essence, it is the

misguided and aggressive American policy towards Muslim World that has

spawned more terrorism and militancy than it has eliminated— from

Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria and Yemen, to Sudan, Somalia and Nigeria.

It is in this context that Pakistan stresses the need to address root causes

— unresolved disputes, political exclusion, economic and social injustice,

poverty, illiteracy and foreign occupation. It maintains that the fight against

terrorism must be multifaceted. The battleground must be political, economic

and social as well as military to deprive the militants and extremists of any

legitimacy. To that end, Pakistani policy makers emphasize that ‘winning hearts

and minds,’ is key to deter militancy and terrorism.37

Surely, this would require

the West to limit its social and politico-military engineering efforts within

Muslim countries under the banner of the ‘War on Terror.’ Rather, the West

needs to engage with the Muslim World in a constructive political dialogue for

the resolution of the conflicts.

Besides, Islamabad calls Muslim governments to take necessary

measures to expand the educational and employment opportunities for youth so

that they could play a vital role in the promotion of peace within their society.

It asserts that focusing on education to promote tolerance and communal

harmony and encouraging participation of Muslim youth in socio-economic

development helps meet basic human needs, builds community resilience and

prevents terrorism.38

Most importantly, the focus point of the ‘root causes’ debate centres

around continued strife and instability in Afghanistan. From Pakistan’s

perspective, the peaceful solution to this conflict is regarded as a way of

defeating the militancy and bringing peace and stability both in Afghanistan and

Pakistan. In fact, fourteen years of US-led military operations, war crimes and

political manipulation in Afghanistan have failed to subdue the Afghan Taliban

insurgency which is now transformed into a national liberation war against the

US occupation. Despite Taliban’s status as an indigenous Afghan resistance


9

movement, Washington still sees Afghan Taliban through the same lens as Al-

Qaeda, to justify a long-term US security presence in Afghanistan.39

Islamabad,

on the other hand, sees political marginalization of Afghan Taliban as a root

cause to continued instability in Afghanistan and the region. It insists that

improving security in the region is directly linked to the political participation of

“moderate” faction of Afghan Taliban. Islamabad is in favour of an Afghan led

reconciliation process comprising all Afghan factions including Afghan Taliban.

Pakistan policy makers assert that peace and stability in Afghanistan will have a

direct salutary effect on the security of Pakistan. 40

Avoid Confrontation between Cultures and Civilizations: Pakistan repeatedly

draws attention of the international community to promote harmony between

communities, cultures, civilizations and faiths. Pakistani leaders tend to believe

that the growing Islamophobia across the United States and Europe is rooted in

developments that arise from the ‘War on Terror,’ indicating a growing

confrontation between cultures and civilizations. No doubt, following the 11

September 2001 tragic attacks on the World Trade Center (New York) and the

Pentagon (Washington), and 7 July 2007 bombings in London, Muslims are

increasingly seen as “an enemy within” in Western societies.41

For instance, the

New York City Police routinely coerce Muslim immigrants, arrested for minor

infractions, to become informants to spy on their community.42

This

discriminatory practice reflects that the Muslim community has remained

inherently suspect ever since 9/11.

Moreover, Muslims face direct and indirect forms of discrimination in

access to housing, employment, education, goods and services across the West.

Attacks against Muslim individuals including women and children, their homes,

shops, mosques and Islamic centers are also on the rise. Furthermore, extremist

politicians in the West stimulate Islamophobia and present themselves as

guardians of a crumbling Western society and a faltering Western

economy against the perceived threat posed by Muslims. By doing so,

politicians may aggravate religious and cultural tensions as part of their strategy

for gaining political power. For instance, in 2010, a number of American

politicians began calling for a ban of Sharia Law in US courts. Afterwards,

several Federal States proposed legislation that would ban the application of

Sharia Law in US state courts. Similarly, the leader of Dutch Party for Freedom,

Geert Wilders campaigns to tax Hijab, ban the reading of the noble Qur’an and

deport back all Moroccan citizens of Muslim immigrant background in the

Netherlands.43

Pakistan strongly opposes the anti-Islam and anti-Muslim agenda of

Western extremist politicians and demands that politicians should exercise

tolerance and restraint when discussing issues relating to Muslims and Islam to

avoid friction between Muslim and non-Muslim societies. In September 2011,

Pakistan’s Foreign Minister attempted to alert the policy makers in the West by


10

equating these politicians as “hate mongers” who should be prohibited “to

pursue their evil agendas under the garb of freedom of expression.”44

Indeed, the increasing anti-Muslim discourse is becoming

more mainstream, systemic and institutionalized across the West. Many

European governments have also adopted “special, harsh measures” to deal with

Islam, as these governments perceive the centrality of Islam in the lives of

Muslims as a threat to European secular values.45

For instance, in Spain, France,

Belgium, Switzerland and the Netherlands, Muslim girls have been banned from

wearing headscarves in schools. Poland and Denmark have brought in laws that

ban the Halal slaughter. In France, Marine Le Pen, leader of far-right National

Front Party, aims to prevent schools from offering special Halal lunches to

Muslim students in the 11 towns where her party won in local elections, saying

such arrangements were contrary to France’s secular values.46

Such

discriminatory policies indicate restrictions on civil liberties and legitimize acts

of religious hatred. As a result, Muslim communities in the West feel

increasingly alienated and excluded from mainstream politics and many Muslims

develop extremist tendencies towards the West.

There is also a venomous campaign going on against Islamic beliefs, its

scriptures and holy personalities, much of it manifested from Western mass

media and internet. The printing of the blasphemous Danish drawings about

Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) in 2006, the burning of the noble

Quran under the supervision of American pastor, Terry Jones, on 20 March

2011, and provocative video uploaded on YouTube in 2012 that disrespected

Islam, escalated the tensions between the Muslim world and the West.

Pakistan described these incidents as “deliberate attempts to discriminate,

defame, denigrate and vilify Muslims and their beliefs” and a serious “set-back”

to efforts at promoting global harmony.47

In that sense, Pakistan cautions

Western policy makers to avoid a confrontation with the Muslim world and

presses for a genuine and honest dialogue between different civilizations to

comprehend each other grievances and promote peace and global harmony.48

Islamabad has also relentlessly advocated effective cooperation with the

UN to stand up against negative stereotyping and discrimination of Muslims.

Addressing the UN General Assembly in September 2013, Prime Minister

Nawaz Sharif sent a strong signal to international community that Islamophobia

is unacceptable and may presage ‘clash of civilization’:

“Islam is a religion of peace, compassion and brotherhood. And

yet most insidious form of contemporary racism in the name of

religion is on the rise. Peaceful Muslim communities are

profiled and subjected to discriminatory practices. Their faith,

culture, holy personalities and scriptures are under attack.

Stereotyping of Muslims as extremists and terrorists must stop.

We must all use the influence and reach of the United Nations to


11

avert a clash of civilizations and promote harmony among

followers of diverse religions, all around the world.”49

Criminalize Religious Defamation and Hatred: Since 1999, Pakistan has made

consistent calls for global legislation to criminalize defamation of religions and

religious hatred as a means to promote human rights and social, cultural and

religious harmony. Pakistan feared that defamation of religions could result in

violence against Muslims to a level similar to the Second World War anti-

Semitic violence led by the Nazis in Europe.50

So, a legal protection against

defamation was considered essential to defend Islam, and other religions. In this

regard, Pakistan has played a major role on behalf of the OIC in pushing the

‘Combating Defamation of Religions’ Resolutions forward at the UN Human

Rights Council and securing adoption of these resolutions on annual basis. It

also seeks to draft an international protocol against “defamation of religions.”

However, the US, European countries, Canada, Australia and some Latin

American countries fiercely oppose a legal framework that would

criminalize religious hatred, on the pretext of protecting human rights and

freedom of expression. Under US pressure, support for the OIC resolution

began to dwindle over the past few years — even within the OIC. In 2010,

Pakistan had to work overtime in Geneva to ensure a simple majority.51

In

March 2011, Pakistan introduced a compromise resolution on behalf of the

OIC, which Omits any reference to ‘defamation’ but encourages countries to

address and combat “advocacy of religious hatred against individuals” that

amounts to incitement to hostility or violence.52

Nevertheless, Islamabad has continued its campaign for an international

law against religious defamation and hatred against the Western criticism that

such law would restrict freedom of expression. Pakistan challenges this Western

notion on the following grounds. First, Pakistan claims that exercising the

individual’s right to freedom of expression carries with it special responsibilities:

to promote tolerance, peace, cultural and inter-faith harmony in a democratic

society. From Pakistan’s view, if freedom of expression is so recklessly

exercised that it sows the seeds of discord among adherents of different religions

through falsehood and ignorance, and foster an environment conducive to

religious hatred and violence then it is “not a service to humanity but an enmity

towards it.”53

Islamabad, therefore, demands that the UN and other international

organizations must seek a law that bans hate speech which intends to stir up

hatred and violence.

Second, from Pakistan’s perspective, hate speech against Muslims and

Islam amounts to “the worst kind of anti-Semitism and bigotry.”54

It is a

remarkable irony that the West does not extend the notion of the freedom of

expression to anti-Semitism and denial of Nazi Holocaust. But the West ardently

invokes freedom of expression when satirizing the tenets of Islam or defending

those who are targeting religious symbols and Prophet of Islam (Peace Be Upon

Him). In fact, anti-Semitism is considered as racism, discrimination, incitement


12

to violence and, therefore, is punishable by laws in many European countries. In

this context, Pakistan has accused Western countries of blatant double standards

following their discriminatory responses to the blasphemous YouTube video and

Danish cartoons, which were in contradiction with the way many European

countries criminalize anti-Semitism and denial of Holocaust.55

Pakistan demands

that the Western countries should enact effective laws to protect religious

sentiments of the Muslims on the lines of laws against anti-Semitism.

Finally, Pakistan demands that Islamophobia must be acknowledged as a

contemporary form of racism and be dealt with as such.56

The West does not

consider religious hatred and discrimination as racism. However, Pakistani

policymakers state that Islamophobia falls clearly within the ambit of

International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial

Discrimination (ICERD).

Contemporary racism against Muslims in the context of ‘War on Terror’

is based on religion, culture, economic and nationality and other kinds of social

mold of ‘inferiorization’ which facilitate the exploitation, exclusion, and other

forms of discrimination against Muslims. It seeks legitimacy and protection

under various pretexts such as combating terrorism and freedom of expression.

In fact, one of the most vivid signs of racism is exercising the right to express

oneself freely to stigmatize a religion and its adherents. Incitement to racial or

religious hatred and attacks on belief systems expressed in vicious language and

practices can seriously damage the self-esteem of two billion Muslims and

ranking them as ‘inferior’ to those of the racists. This fact brings the anti-Muslim

rhetoric and acts within the purview of ICERD, which centres on protection of

the individual and collective ability of human beings to sustain the codes and

beliefs they regard as integral to their identity and dignity. 57

ICERD prohibits incitement to racial discrimination and

actsofraciallymotivatedviolence as well as dissemination of ideas based on

racial superiority or hatred. It alsocallsforprohibitions

onpublicauthoritiesorinstitutionsto promote or incite racial

discrimination.58

In this context, Pakistan calls for laws to strike a balance

between freedom of expression and freedom from racial discrimination. This

narrative underscores that there will have to be, in a civilized and democratic

society, some restraints on freedom of expression and defamation of religions

must be one legitimate restraint to prevent racial discrimination against Muslims.

Failing which, the continuation of frictions, discord and conflict over these

issues will undermine civil society in Muslim as well as Western countries.

Conclusion

Pakistan views an expanded US-led ‘War on Terror’ modeled on a sophisticated

propaganda campaign of Islamophobia as a serious concern for discord between

Muslims and the West and a grave threat to international security, peace and

prosperity. To foster harmony among cultures and civilizations and to bring


13

peace and security to South Asian region and beyond, Pakistan has adopted a

consistent stance which challenges the Western narrative and calls for the

implementation of a comprehensive and coherent strategy. This strategy looks

inwards to Muslim governments to bolster economic and social development in

their countries. It looks outward to the West, specially United States to review

and resolve its anti-Muslim and anti-Islam policies and to play an effective role

in the resolution of political disputes and conflicts confronting the Muslim

World.59

In particular, the peaceful resolution of Kashmir and Palestine disputes

and Afghanistan conflict and combating religious hatred and violence will be

vital to defeat the scourge of militancy and terrorism and to bring global peace

and harmony.

End Notes

1 Vassilis Fouskas and Bülent Gökay, The New American Imperialism: Bush’s War on

Terror and Blood for Oil, (Westport: Praeger, 2005), pp. 28-29. 2 Hina Rabbani Khar, “A Comprehensive Approach to Counter-Terrorism,” Statement at

the Open Debate of the Security Council (15 January 2013);

http://pakun.org/statements/Security_Council/2013/01152013-01.php (accessed 20

January 2013). 3 Khalid Hasan, “Kasuri Slams India's State Terrorism at UNSC,” Daily Times, 21

January 2003. 4 Statement by Hina Rabbani Khar, Op Cit.

5 Ibid.

6 “Kashmir and Palestine have Right to Self-Determination: Khar,” The Express

Tribune, 24 September 2011. 7 Abu al-Salam Muhammad, “Jihad in Islam,” in Idris El Hareir and El Hadji Ravane

(ed.), Different Aspects of Islamic Culture, Vol. 3: The Spread of Islam throughout the

World (Paris: UNESCO, 2011), p. 181. 8 Ibid. p. 178.

9 “Pak Slams Indian Repression in IHK,” The Nation, 29 September 2010.

10 “Foreign Powers Behind Terrorism: DG ISI,” Samaa News, 8 July 2010.

11 Qaiser Butt, “CIA Agent Davis had Ties with Local Militants,” The Express Tribune,

22 February 2011. 12

M. K. Bhadrakumar, “Pakistan Confronts US Afghan Strategy,” The Hindu, 27 April

2011. 13

Imtiaz Gul, “Cobweb of Spy Network,” The News, 27 February 2011. 14

Ambassador Masood Khan, Permanent Representative of Pakistan to the United

Nations, Statement made at the fourth review of the UN Global Counter- Terrorism

Strategy, New York (12 June 2014); Available

at:http://pakun.org/statements/Sixth_Committee/2014/06122014-01.php (accessed 15

June 2014). 15

Sardar Sikander Shaheen, “Pakistan Lost Rs 8,264 Billion in ‘War on Terror’,” Daily

Times, 3 June 2014. 16

Statement by Ambassador Masood Khan, Op Cit. 17

Statement by Hina Rabbani Khar, Op Cit. 18

Arshad Khan, Islam, Muslims, and America: Understanding the Basis of Their

Conflict (New York: Algora, 2003), p. 50.

http://archives.dailytimes.com.pk/Reporter/khalid-hasan

http://pakun.org/statements/Sixth_Committee/2014/06122014-01.php


14

19

Shamshad Ahmad, “Counter-Terrorism Committee (CTC),” Statement made at

the Public Meeting of the UN Security Council, New York (18 January 2002);

Available at: http://spaces.brad.ac.uk:8080/download/attachments/1610/terSC6.pdf

(accessed 26 May 2009). 20

“‘Trigger-happy’ Israeli Army and Police Use Reckless Force in the West Bank,”

Amnesty International Report (27 February 2014), pp. 5-10. 21

Noam Chomsky Interviews with David Barsamian, Imperial Ambitions:

Conversations with Noam Chomsky on the Post 9/11 World (New York: Metropolitan

Books, 2005), p. 28. 22

“Kashmir and Palestine have Right to Self-Determination: Khar,” Op Cit. 23

“Senate Passes Resolution Unanimously over Palestine Issue,” Daily Times, 8 August

2014. 24

United Nations Press Release - GA/SHC/3654 - Fifty-sixth General Assembly,

Third Committee, 5 November 2001, 30th Meeting (PM). 25


Seumas Milne, “Another Western War Won’t End Terror in Iraq or Syria. It Will Only

Spread It,” The Guardian, 18 September 2014. 27

Anwar Iqbal and Masood Haider, “Sharif Defends Talks with Taliban, Seeks End to

Drone Strikes,” Dawn, 28 September 2013. 28

David Ignatius, “A Quiet Deal with Pakistan,” The Washington Post, 4 October 2008. 29

“We’ll Protest in the National Assembly and then Ignore It.” Available at:

http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2008/08/08ISLAMABAD2802.html (accessed 9

December 2011). 30

Anwar Iqbal and Masood Haider, Op Cit. 31

Umer Farooq, “Legal challenge: PHC Terms Drone Strike ‘Naked Aggression’,” The

Express Tribune, 10 May 2013. 32

Ibid. 33

“UN Backs Resolution Presented by Pakistan on Drones,” Dawn, 28 March 2014. 34“Pakistan Envoy Says Terror is Symptom,” Stanford Report, 5 March 2003. 35

General Pervez Musharraf, “Time for Enlightened Moderation,” Washington Post, 1

June 2004. 36

Kaiser Bengali, “Why Censor Freedom of Expression only in Case of Anti-Semitism?”

The Express Tribune, 24 September 2012. 37

General Pervez Musharraf, Op Cit; Asif Ali Zardari, “Pakistan will Prevail Against

Terrorism,” Boston Globe, 25 September 2008; “Pakistan Calls Upon UN to Address

Root Causes of Terrorism,” Dawn, 7 March 2015. 38

Statement by Hina Rabbani Khar, Op Cit; “Pakistan Steadfast in Resolve to Defeat

Terrorism: Nisar,” The News, 20 February2015. 39

Amy Zalman and Jonathan Clarke, “The Global War on Terror: A Narrative in Need

of a Rewrite,” Ethics & International Affairs, Vol. 23, Issue 2 (Summer 2009), pp.

101-113. 40

“Pakistan Advises Taliban Role in Afghan Government,” BBC News, 28 January 2010. 41

Magda El-Ghitany, “Enemy Within,” Al Ahram Weekly, Cairo, Issue No. 751, 14-20

July 2005. 42

Joseph Goldstein, “New York Police Recruit Muslims to Be Informers,” New York

Times, 10 May 2014. 43

“Seventh OIC Observatory Report on Islamophobia, October 2013 – April 2014,”

Jeddah (June 2014), pp. 14-36.

http://spaces.brad.ac.uk:8080/download/attachments/1610/terSC6.pdf


15

44


Magda El-Ghitany, Op Cit. 46

“Seventh OIC Observatory Report on Islamophobia, October 2013 – April 2014,” Op

Cit. 47

“Sacrilegious film: OIC Demands Laws against ‘Islamophobia’,” The Express

Tribune, 26 September 2012. 48

Ambassador Raza Bashir Tarar, Deputy Permanent Representative of Pakistan to the

United Nations, “Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism” Statement at the

Sixth Committee during 67th UN General Assembly, New York (8 October 2012).

http://www.pakun.org/statements/Sixth_Committee/2012/10082012-01.php (accessed

20 October 2012). 49

Anwar Iqbal and Masood Haider, Op Cit. 50

See Press Release, Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Report of

Pakistan, 20 February 2009. 51

Munir Akram, “Defamation of Religions,” Dawn, 29 September 2012. 52

Robert Evans, “Islamic Bloc Drops UN Drive on Defaming Religion,” Reuters, 25

March 2011. 53

Sunara Nizami, “Ashraf Demands International Law Banning Hate Speech Against

Islam,” The Express Tribune, 21 September 2012. 54

Ibid. 55

“Sacrilegious film: OIC Demands Laws against ‘Islamophobia’, Op Cit. 56 Ibid. 57

Patrick Thornberry, “Forms of Hate Speech and the Convention on the Elimination of

All Forms of Racial Discrimination,” Religion and Human Rights, Vol. 5, Issues 2-3

(2010), pp. 97-117. 58

Ibid. 59

Munir Akram, “Tips to Contain Militancy,” Dawn, 7 July 2013.

http://www.pakun.org/statements/Sixth_Committee/2012/10082012-01.php

http://www.dawn.com/authors/368/dawnmunirakram

http://www.dawn.com/news/752997/defamation-of-religions

http://tribune.com.pk/story/442436/sacriligious-film-oic-demands-laws-against-islamophobia/

http://www.dawn.com/authors/368/dawnmunirakram

http://www.dawn.com/news/1023367/tips-to-contain-militancy

pakistan’s stance on the ‘war on terror’ challenging the...

Documents